Clause 31
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
10:45 am
Angela Smith (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Basildon, Labour)
I thank all hon. Gentlemen for their comments on the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak described himself as part of a Back-Bench rebellion, which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was anxious to join. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford made the point that it is important that in Committee we scrutinise everything that comes before us, which the Committee has done quite admirably in this debate. Indeed, almost a third of the Committee has spoken on the amendment.
I have listened carefully to all the arguments made in the debate and it is clear from the contributions that there is a real commitment in the Committee to ensuring that there is strong leadership in local government. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove based most of his comments on the need to be truly democratic, as he put it, so that local councils alone can decide these matters. My hon. Friends the Members for Wigan, for Leicester South, for Denton and Reddish and for High Peak also raised the issue of ensuring strong leadership in local government. We are seeking to achieve both those aims in the clause.
Obviously, there are members of the Committee with considerable experience of local councils. I have eight years of experience in Essex—I must mention Essex, as it has not been mentioned yet, and we are touring the nation and I am the House of Commons’ honorary Essex girl. Because of their great experience of local government, we ought to take note of the arguments made by members of the Committee.
The Government consider that there are strong arguments that whole-council elections bring benefits to councils and communities, creating greater accountability and clarity for electors, and that such elections have the potential to strengthen the democratic process. As I made clear to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove during the evidence sessions, the Government preference is for whole-council elections. However, as has been said in the debate today, it is not that straightforward. It may help the Committee if I describe the broader context, it is quite complex.
The current position is that all county councils and London boroughs have whole-council elections. In addition, all parish councils are required to have whole-council elections. Shire district councils may request either whole-council elections or partial elections, and 63 per cent. of districts have whole-council elections. They may change their electoral cycle by asking the Secretary of State to make an order. All metropolitan districts have elections by thirds. That is clear, then.
It has been widely recognised for a considerable time that there is quite a mish-mash of electoral arrangements, which can be confusing for electors. It could be said that it is just an accident of history that we have different arrangements for different councils. That was why the Government invited the independent Electoral Commission to address those issues in January 2003. The Electoral Commission responded a year later, stating that whole-council elections would increase participation and bring clearer accountability. The Government said that they were minded to agree with the principal recommendation, which was to move to whole-council elections for English councils. In the 2005 general election manifesto, we stated that
“the case for simplifying the current local government election cycle by moving towards ‘whole council’ elections every four years”
would be examined. That is what we have done, and that is what has been discussed in the Committee today and in the previous sitting. That is the background for adopting the approach that is outlined in the White Paper and the Bill.